Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 90 references

Photoproduction of two charged pions off protons in the resonance region

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Event-based fit fixes N rho(770) branching fractions of baryon resonances.

desk verdict Solid CLAS cross sections and spin-density matrix elements; the Nρ branching fractions are BnGa-model outputs that the Summary overstates as uniquely determined by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15423 v1 pith:FZJAFN6S submitted 2024-11-23 nucl-ex

A.V. Sarantsev , E. Klempt , K.V. Nikonov , P. Achenbach , V.D. Burkert , V. Crede , V. Mokeev This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 13.60.Le14.20.Gk25.20.Lj
keywords gammaptopi+pi-nucleonresonancesDeltarho(770)photoproductionevent-basedlikelihoodfitBnGacoupled-channelanalysisspin-densitymatrixelementsCLAS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a new measurement of the reaction $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-p$ with the CLAS detector at Jefferson Lab, covering final-state invariant masses from 1.6 to 2.4 GeV. For the first time, this reaction is fitted event-by-event in five-dimensional phase space inside the Bonn-Gatchina coupled-channel analysis, rather than through binned histograms. The analysis produces total and differential cross sections and spin-density matrix elements for the isobars $p\rho^0(770)$, $\Delta(1232)^{++}\pi^-$, and $\Delta(1232)^{0}\pi^+$. It also yields branching fractions for decays of most known $N^*$ and $\Delta^*$ resonances into $N\rho(770)$, values that the authors argue are uniquely determined by the new data. The result matters because these decay rates test the quark structure of baryon excitations and have previously been poorly known or contradictory.

What carries the argument

The carrying tool is the Bonn-Gatchina coupled-channel partial-wave amplitude, fitted to the data with an event-based maximum-likelihood term. The amplitude uses a D-matrix based on dispersion relations with a one-step subtraction, K-matrix poles for resonances, and Blatt-Weisskopf form factors, and it describes the reaction as a sum of quasi-two-body isobar channels - $p\rho^0(770)$, $\Delta(1232)^{++}\pi^-$, $\Delta(1232)^{0}\pi^+$, and smaller contributions - with interference between all amplitudes. Non-resonant $N\pi\pi$ production is deliberately not included. The event-based likelihood exploits all correlations in the five-dimensional phase space, whereas the full 400-million-event data set enters only as binned mass and angular distributions; the two are fitted jointly to the BnGa database of pion- and photo-induced reactions.

What would settle it

A fit to the same CLAS data with an explicit non-resonant $N\pi\pi$ three-body amplitude added, or an independent partial-wave analysis of high-statistics data that does not impose the isobar decomposition, would settle the point: if the goodness of fit improves substantially and the extracted $N\rho$ branching fractions in Table IV change by more than their quoted uncertainties, the central claim fails. A direct measurement of the $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-p$ spin-density matrix elements over a wider angular range could also expose missing amplitudes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an event-based likelihood fit of the CLAS g11a data on $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-p$, combined with the BnGa coupled-channel amplitude, determines the $N\rho(770)$ branching fractions of most known nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances. The fit uses nearly two million events in four detection topologies treated together, so the five-dimensional correlations of the three-body final state are preserved. The resulting Table IV is the first set of $N\rho$ branching ratios obtained from an event-based likelihood for this reaction. The authors find in particular that the cross section for $\gamma p \to N\rho^0(770)$ is largely diffractive above $E_\gamma \sim 1.4$ GeV, while the strong $\Delta(1232)^{++}\pi^-$ production is driven by the Kroll-Ruderman mechanism, and that resonance contributions show up as deviations in the spin-density matrix elements and in backward-angle intensity.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction rests on the isobar-model assumption that $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-p$ is fully described by quasi-two-body channels ($p\rho^0(770)$, $\Delta(1232)\pi$, plus a few smaller isobars) with no direct non-resonant $N\pi\pi$ production; if a sizable three-body amplitude exists, the $N\rho(770)$ branching fractions and cross sections would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Table IV provides the first set of $N\rho(770)$ branching fractions for resonances such as $N(1520)3/2^-$, $N(1675)5/2^-$, $N(1720)3/2^+$, $\Delta(1620)1/2^-$, and $\Delta(1920)3/2^+$, replacing or sharpening the wide ranges quoted in the Review of Particle Physics.
  • The measured total cross section and isobar excitation functions become a benchmark for future models of two-pion photoproduction in the resonance region.
  • The spin-density matrix elements for $\rho^0(770)$ and $\Delta(1232)^{++}$ decays provide new constraints on the exchange mechanisms (Pomeron exchange, pion exchange, Kroll-Ruderman) and on the size of resonance contributions.
  • The joint treatment of four detection topologies demonstrates that acceptance biases can be controlled at the level needed for event-based extraction, opening the same treatment for other three-body photoproduction channels.
  • The full binned data set and the event-based sample are not fully consistent at low photon energies, and the authors fold the spread of different fits into the systematic uncertainty rather than into the quoted central values.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the isobar assumption is relaxed by adding an explicit non-resonant $N\pi\pi$ three-body amplitude, the $N\rho$ branching fractions would likely shift because Table IV is obtained by integration over the $\rho$ line shape; a direct three-body term could absorb some of the intensity currently assigned to $N\rho$.
  • The method suggests a template for event-based partial-wave extraction in other reactions with large event samples, for example double-pion electroproduction, where the same BnGa machinery is applied to virtual photons.
  • The near-constant $N\rho$ cross section above $E_\gamma \sim 1.3$ GeV, interpreted as diffractive, implies that the resonance contributions to $N\rho$ are best isolated at backward angles or through the spin-density matrix elements; a dedicated backward-angle measurement with higher statistics could test the $N\rho$ branching fractions without relying on the forward-dominated fit.
  • A testable extension is to compare the $N\rho$ branching fractions in Table IV with values from an independent analysis of $\pi^- p \to \pi^+\pi^-n$ data in the same mass region, since the coupled-channel fit ties the photoproduction amplitudes to the pion-induced sector.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a high-statistics measurement of the reaction γp → π+π−p using CLAS g11a data, with about 400 million events processed through four event topologies and a subsample of nearly 1.8 million events used in an event-based likelihood fit. The analysis reports total and differential cross sections for the isobars pρ0(770), Δ(1232)++π−, and Δ(1232)0π+, spin-density matrix elements, and, from the Bonn–Gatchina coupled-channel analysis, branching ratios of N* and Δ* resonances into Nρ(770) (Table IV). The authors state that this is the first extraction of Nρ branching ratios from an event-based likelihood fit to γp → π+π−p and that the new CLAS data uniquely determine these branching fractions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a comprehensive resonance-region dataset for γp → π+π−p and the first event-based, multi-topology likelihood extraction of Nρ branching fractions, which would be a valuable step for baryon spectroscopy. The internal consistency checks are genuine strengths: the four event topologies agree after acceptance correction (Fig. 7), the kinematic-fit pulls are Gaussian with unit width (Fig. 4), the three-pion background is simulated and quantified (Section II.D), and systematic uncertainties are estimated from the spread of PWA solutions rather than from a single fit (Table II, Section IV.C). The cross sections and spin-density matrix elements will be useful references for future coupled-channel analyses even if the model-dependent branching ratios shift.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.C / Table IV] The central quantitative claim, that the Nρ branching ratios in Table IV are 'uniquely determined by the new CLAS data' (Section VI), rests on the untested BnGa assumption that the reaction contains no coherent non-resonant Nππ amplitude. Section IV.C states 'Non-resonant production of Nππ is not needed,' but no test is shown in which such an amplitude is added and its effect on Table IV is quantified. The SAPHIR comparison in Fig. 12 makes this load-bearing: SAPHIR fitted the same reaction with a large phase-space contribution and obtained a markedly smaller Nρ excitation function, and the difference is attributed to model choices, not to the data. Because amplitudes are complex and can interfere, the omitted term could be partially absorbed by modified resonance couplings, shifting the extracted branching fractions. Please add a concrete test (e.g., fits with a model non-resonant Nππ amplitude or an equivalent phase-space/Deck term) and report the resulting variations in Table IV, or restrict the claims accordingly.
  2. [Section III.B / Refs. [5,6]] The model that produces Table IV is not fully specified in this manuscript. Section III.B refers to the explicit D-matrix formulae as 'given elsewhere [6],' and Ref. [6] is in preparation, while the polarization data of Ref. [5] are also in preparation. A reader cannot reproduce the branching fractions or assess their model dependence. Please either include the relevant amplitude definitions and data set descriptions in an appendix or supplementary material, or state clearly which parts of the result are contingent on the unpublished analysis.
  3. [Sections III.C and II.C] The acceptance correction for the event-based sample is computed with the GSIM detector simulation and the JM05 event generator, and Section III.C asserts that 'the details of the reaction model are irrelevant to the likelihood fit.' This is not demonstrated: if JM05 misrepresents the kinematic distributions in the 1.6–2.4 GeV region, the reconstructed-versus-generated weights in Eq. (5) are biased. The agreement among the four topologies (Fig. 7) is a necessary check but not sufficient, since all topologies share the same generator. Please quantify the acceptance-model dependence, for example by reweighting Monte Carlo events with the final BnGa solution and comparing acceptances to those obtained with JM05, and add the resulting uncertainty to Table II.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section VI] The abstract says branching ratios are obtained 'from an event based likelihood fit,' but Table IV is a product of the full BnGa coupled-channel fit that also includes the full data set and other channels; please clarify the specific role of the likelihood sample.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The meaning of σi as a differential cross section 'calculated for the reconstructed data events' normalized by the Monte Carlo sum needs a precise definition (binning, phase-space density, normalization) to be reproducible.
  3. [Figure 11 caption] The caption ends with the stray string 'begindocument/before'; this appears to be a leftover from the manuscript preparation and should be removed.
  4. [Sections II.C and IV.C] The name 'Kroll–Rudermann' is misspelled; the standard form is Kroll–Ruderman.
  5. [Table IV] The relationship between the first line (this work, with uncertainties) and the second line (RPP ranges) should be stated explicitly in the caption; several rows have no RPP entry, which is not explained.
  6. [Section III.C] The text alternates between 'data are' and 'data is' (e.g., 'This data is called the full data set'); please harmonize.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Branching fractions are fit outputs, not predictions, but the acceptance correction is fed by the BnGa solution being extracted and the model formulas are deferred to an in-preparation same-author reference.

  1. other [Section III.C, paragraph after Eq. (5)]
    "The acceptance of the event-based data sample is determined by a comparison of reconstructed and generated Monte Carlo events weighted with the result of the BnGa coupled-channel analysis."

    The BnGa coupled-channel analysis is the same analysis whose final output includes the Table IV N rho branching fractions. Computing the acceptance with the BnGa result means the event sample fed into the likelihood has already been reshaped by the model being fitted. If that model's no-background assumption is wrong, the acceptance correction cannot reveal it; it propagates the model's isobar decomposition into the 'data'. Thus the Summary's claim that the branching ratios are 'uniquely determined by the new CLAS data' is not a clean data-driven extraction, although iterative convergence could make the bias small.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section III.B.b ('The BnGa PWA approach')]
    "The explicit formulae are given elsewhere [6]."

    The BnGa amplitude is the machinery from which the N rho branching ratios in Table IV are extracted. The paper does not give those formulae; it sends the reader to Ref. [6], listed as 'in preparation' and authored by Sarantsev et al., including current authors. The claim of uniqueness in the Summary therefore leans on an unpublished same-author specification that cannot be checked against the arguments in this paper. This is load-bearing self-citation, not independent external support.

full rationale

The paper's central numbers are fit outputs, not predictions: the abstract explicitly says 'Branching ratios are obtained here from an event based likelihood fit,' so there is no case in which a parameter fitted to a subset is later relabeled as a prediction. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of itself. The main circularity-like concern is the acceptance loop: the acceptance of the event-based sample is computed with the BnGa result, i.e., with the very coupled-channel solution whose final outputs include the N rho branching fractions of Table IV. If the model omits a coherent non-resonant N pi pi amplitude (Section IV.C: 'Non-resonant production of N pi pi is not needed'), the acceptance correction cannot restore it, and the SAPHIR comparison shows that adding a phase-space background shifts the N rho excitation function. This is model dependence bordering on feedback, but it is not a logical tautology; a converged iterative fit can be self-consistent. Second, the explicit BnGa amplitude formulae are deferred to Ref. [6], an in-preparation paper by the same authors, so the extraction rests in part on a load-bearing self-citation that is not independently checkable from this paper. These issues weaken the Summary's claim that the branching ratios are 'uniquely determined by the new CLAS data,' but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced in this paper. The N'(1720) resonance is mentioned only as context from prior work. The central extraction rests on many fitted parameters and on the modeling assumptions listed above, which are the real price of the analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • Resonance couplings and masses for all N* and Delta* resonances in the BnGa fit = not listed in paper
    The fit optimizes photocouplings, hadronic couplings, masses, and widths; Table IV branching ratios are derived from these fitted parameters.
  • Non-resonant amplitudes (Pomeron exchange, pion exchange, Kroll-Ruderman terms) = fit parameters
    These amplitudes describe t-channel and contact mechanisms and are tuned to the data, with values not quoted.
  • Blatt-Weisskopf barrier radii = not disclosed
    Angular momentum barrier form factors affect line shapes and extracted branching ratios.
  • Data set weights in the combined chi-squared and likelihood = chosen by hand
    Each BnGa data set is weighted by hand to balance its impact; weights are varied by a factor of two only in systematic studies, not determined by the data.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Isobar decomposition: the reaction is fully described by quasi-two-body channels such as p rho0 and Delta(1232) pi, and non-resonant N pi pi production is not needed.
    Explicitly stated in Section IV.C; if a direct three-body amplitude is sizable, the extracted branching ratios shift.
  • domain assumption The D-matrix formalism with analyticity and two-particle unitarity, using a one-step subtraction, correctly describes the energy dependence of the amplitudes.
    Section III.B.b; this is the theoretical framework of the BnGa approach and is assumed valid.
  • domain assumption The GSIM detector simulation with the JM05 event generator accurately describes the CLAS acceptance.
    Section II.C.b and Section III.C; acceptance corrections are critical for cross sections and branching ratios.
  • domain assumption The three-pion background can be modeled by a phase-space approximation.
    Section II.D; the estimated background fractions of 1-6% rely on this approximation.
  • domain assumption The four event topologies (4C and 1C fits) represent the same underlying process and can be combined in one fit.
    Section III.C.a; consistency checks are shown, but systematic differences between topologies are possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoproduction of two charged pions off protons in the resonance region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZJAFN6S

@misc{pith2026241115423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoproduction of two charged pions off protons in the resonance region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZJAFN6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15423}
}
read the original abstract

Photoproduction of charged pions pairs off protons is studied within the invariant masses of the final state hadrons from 1.6 to 2.4 GeV at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility with the CLAS detector. The data are included in the Bonn-Gatchina coupled-channel analysis and provide the information necessary to determine the branching fractions for most known nucleon and Delta resonances. Branching ratios are obtained here from an event based likelihood fit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cut-away view of the CLAS detector [59] illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Polar (Θ) versus azimuthal ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Confidence level distributions for data (black) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Missing mass distribution for Monte Carlo events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pull distributions for 4C events: Number of events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. In the center-of-mass system, the photon and proton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Acceptance-corrected Dalitz plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The total cross section for the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The spin-density matrix elements for the decay of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The spin-density matrix elements for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The spin-density matrix elements for the ∆(1232) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The spin-density matrix elements for the ∆(1232) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Decays of N and ∆ resonances into pπ+π−

    A. V. Sarantsev et al. , “Decays of N and ∆ resonances into pπ+π−”, in preparation

  2. [5]

    Multiple pion photoproduction in the s-channel resonance region,

    D. L¨ uke and P. S¨ oding, “Multiple pion photoproduction in the s-channel resonance region,” Springer Tracts Mod. Phys. 59, 39 (1971)

    1971

  3. [1]

    2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 M(π+π-) (GeV) 0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 M(π+p) (GeV) 0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 M(π-p) (GeV) FIG. 8. The π+π− (a), pπ+ (b), and pπ− (c) mass distri- butions for the mass range 1 .9 < W <2.1 GeV for the four topologies Ci, i= 0 , 1, 2, 3. The distributions are not cor- rected for efficiency. The data are represented by crosses, our fit (in red) ...

    2000

  4. [2]

    50 Years of Quantum Chro- modynamics,

    F. Gross, E. Klempt et al., “50 Years of Quantum Chro- modynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125 (2023)

    2023

  5. [3]

    Diffractive Elec- troproduction of ρ(770) and ϕ Mesons at HERA,

    F. D. Aaron et al. [H1 Collaboration], “Diffractive Elec- troproduction of ρ(770) and ϕ Mesons at HERA,” JHEP 05, 032 (2010)

    2010

  6. [4]

    First results on nucleon resonance photocouplings from the γp → π+π−p reaction,

    E. Golovatch et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “First results on nucleon resonance photocouplings from the γp → π+π−p reaction,” Phys. Lett. B 788, 371 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Measurement of (double-)polarization observables in the photoproduction of π+π− meson pairs off the proton using CLAS at Jef- ferson Laboratory,

    P. Roy et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “Measurement of (double-)polarization observables in the photoproduction of π+π− meson pairs off the proton using CLAS at Jef- ferson Laboratory,” in preparation

  8. [8]

    Nucleon resonances and transition form factors

    V. D. Burkert, “Nucleon resonances and transition form factors,” in: [2], [arXiv:2212.08980 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    First results on nucleon resonance electroexcitation amplitudes from ep → e′π+π−p′ cross sections at W = 1.4–1.7 GeV and Q2 = 2.0–5.0 GeV2,

    V. I. Mokeev et al. , “First results on nucleon resonance electroexcitation amplitudes from ep → e′π+π−p′ cross sections at W = 1.4–1.7 GeV and Q2 = 2.0–5.0 GeV2,” Phys. Rev. C 108, 025204 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    π−p reactions at 456, 505, and 552 MeV /c,

    D. H. Saxon, J. H. Mulvey and W. Chinowsky, “ π−p reactions at 456, 505, and 552 MeV /c,” Phys. Rev. D 2, 1790 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    Reaction π−p → 18 π−π+n from 360 to 800 MeV,

    J. Kirz, J. Schwartz and R. D. Tripp, “Reaction π−p → 18 π−π+n from 360 to 800 MeV,” Phys. Rev. 130, 2481 (1963)

    1963

  4. [12]

    Partial wave analysis of the reac- tion πN → N ππbelow 1 GeV: (II) π+p inelastic interac- tions,

    M. De Beer et al. , “Partial wave analysis of the reac- tion πN → N ππbelow 1 GeV: (II) π+p inelastic interac- tions,” Nucl. Phys. B 12, 617 (1969)

    1969

  5. [13]

    Partial wave analysis of the reaction πN → N ππbelow 1 GeV: (I) π−p inelastic interactions,

    M. De Beer et al. , “Partial wave analysis of the reaction πN → N ππbelow 1 GeV: (I) π−p inelastic interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B 12, 599 (1969)

    1969

  6. [14]

    Experimental results on π−p interactions in the cm en- ergy range 1.50–1.74 GeV,

    J. Dolbeau, M. Neveu, F. A. Triantis and C. Coutures, “Experimental results on π−p interactions in the cm en- ergy range 1.50–1.74 GeV,” Nucl. Phys. B78, 233 (1974)

    1974

  7. [15]

    Experimental results on the reactions π−p → ππN in the c.m. energy range 1400–2000 MeV,

    A. D. Brody et al., “Experimental results on the reactions π−p → ππN in the c.m. energy range 1400–2000 MeV,” Phys. Rev. D 4, 2693 (1971) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 5, 2899 (1972)]

    1971

  8. [16]

    Measurement of the π−n → π−π−p cross-sections near the threshold,

    A. V. Kravtsov et al. , “Measurement of the π−n → π−π−p cross-sections near the threshold,” Nucl. Phys. B 134, 413 (1978)

    1978

  9. [17]

    An isobar model partial wave analysis of three-body final states in π+p interactions from threshold to 1700 MeV c.m. energy,

    K. W. J. Barnham et al., “An isobar model partial wave analysis of three-body final states in π+p interactions from threshold to 1700 MeV c.m. energy,” Nucl. Phys. B 168, 243 (1980)

    1980

  10. [18]

    Measurement of π−p → π+π−n near threshold and chiral symmetry breaking,

    C. W. Bjork et al., “Measurement of π−p → π+π−n near threshold and chiral symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 62 (1980)

    1980

  11. [19]

    The investigation of the π−p → π0π0n reaction near the threshold,

    A. A. Belkov et al. , “The investigation of the π−p → π0π0n reaction near the threshold,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 96 (1980)

    1980

  12. [20]

    Cross- section measurement of π−p → π−π+n reaction near threshold,

    G. Kernel et al. [OMICRON Collaboration], “Cross- section measurement of π−p → π−π+n reaction near threshold,” Phys. Lett. B 216, 244 (1989)

    1989

  13. [21]

    Analysis of π−p → π+π−n Below 1400 MeV and chiral symmetry breaking,

    R. Aaron et al. , “Analysis of π−p → π+π−n Below 1400 MeV and chiral symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 66 (1980)

    1980

  14. [22]

    Measure- ment of the reaction π+p → π+π+n near threshold,

    G. Kernel et al. [OMICRON Collaboration], “Measure- ment of the reaction π+p → π+π+n near threshold,” Z. Phys. C 48, 201 (1990)

    1990

  15. [23]

    Measure- ment of π−p → π−pπ0 reaction near threshold and break- ing of chiral symmetry,

    G. Kernel et al. [OMICRON Collaboration], “Measure- ment of π−p → π−pπ0 reaction near threshold and break- ing of chiral symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 225, 198 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    π−p → π0π0n near threshold and chiral symmetry breaking,

    J. Lowe et al. , “π−p → π0π0n near threshold and chiral symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. C 44, 956 (1991)

    1991

  17. [25]

    Measurement of the H(π+, π+π+)n cross-section very near threshold and chiral symmetry,

    M. E. Sevior et al., “Measurement of the H(π+, π+π+)n cross-section very near threshold and chiral symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2569 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    Two-pion production in the second resonance region in π−p collisions with the High-Acceptance Di-Electron Spectrometer (HADES),

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. [HADES Collaboration], “Two-pion production in the second resonance region in π−p collisions with the High-Acceptance Di-Electron Spectrometer (HADES),” Phys. Rev. C 102, 024001 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Mea- surement of π−p → π0π0n from threshold to pπ− = 750 MeV/c,

    S. Prakhov et al. [Crystal Ball Collaboration], “Mea- surement of π−p → π0π0n from threshold to pπ− = 750 MeV/c,” Phys. Rev. C 69, 045202 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Photoproduction of me- son and baryon resonances at energies up to 5.8 GeV,

    R. Erbe et al. , [Aachen–Berlin–Bonn–Hamburg–Heidel- berg–M¨ unchen Collaboration], “Photoproduction of me- son and baryon resonances at energies up to 5.8 GeV,” Phys. Rev. 175, 1669 (1968)

    1968

  21. [29]

    Production of the N ∗(1238) nucleon isobar by photons of energy up to 6 BeV,

    H. R. Crouch et al. [Cambridge Bubble Chamber Group], “Production of the N ∗(1238) nucleon isobar by photons of energy up to 6 BeV,” Phys. Rev. 163, 1510 (1967)

    1967

  22. [30]

    Bubble chamber study of photopro- duction by 2.8- and 4.7-GeV polarized photons. I. Cross- section determinations and production of ρ0 and ∆++ in the reaction γp → pπ+π−,

    J. Ballam et al. , “Bubble chamber study of photopro- duction by 2.8- and 4.7-GeV polarized photons. I. Cross- section determinations and production of ρ0 and ∆++ in the reaction γp → pπ+π−,” Phys. Rev. D 5, 545 (1972)

    1972

  23. [31]

    Multipion and strange- particle photoproduction on protons at energies up to 5.8 GeV,

    R. Erbe et al. [Aachen–Berlin–Bonn–Hamburg–Heidel- berg–M¨ unchen Collaboration], “Multipion and strange- particle photoproduction on protons at energies up to 5.8 GeV,” Phys. Rev. 188, 2060 (1969)

    1969

  24. [32]

    Total cross-section measurement for the three double pion production channels on the pro- ton,

    A. Braghieri et al., “Total cross-section measurement for the three double pion production channels on the pro- ton,” Phys. Lett. B 363, 46 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    Study of high-energy photoproduc- tion with positron annihilation radiation: I. Three prong events,

    J. Ballam et al. , “Study of high-energy photoproduc- tion with positron annihilation radiation: I. Three prong events,” Phys. Rev. D 5, 15 (1972)

    1972

  26. [34]

    Photoproduction of neutral pion pairs from the proton,

    M. Wolf et al. , “Photoproduction of neutral pion pairs from the proton,” Eur. Phys. J. A 9, 5 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    Two neutral pion photoproduction off the proton between threshold and 800 MeV,

    F. Harter et al. , “Two neutral pion photoproduction off the proton between threshold and 800 MeV,” Phys. Lett. B 401, 229 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    Photoproduction of π0π0 and π0π± pairs off the proton from threshold to the second resonance region,

    F. Zehr et al. [Crystal Ball at MAMI, TAPS, and A2 Col- laborations], “Photoproduction of π0π0 and π0π± pairs off the proton from threshold to the second resonance region,” Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 98 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Interme- diate resonance excitation in the γp → p 2π0 reaction,

    J. Ahrens et al. [GDH and A2 Collaborations], “Interme- diate resonance excitation in the γp → p 2π0 reaction,” Phys. Lett. B 624, 173 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Double π0 photoproduction off the proton at threshold,

    M. Kotulla et al. , “Double π0 photoproduction off the proton at threshold,” Phys. Lett. B 578, 63 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    First measurement of the helicity dependence for the γp → π+π−p reaction,

    J. Ahrens et al. [GDH and A2 Collaborations], “First measurement of the helicity dependence for the γp → π+π−p reaction,” Eur. Phys. J. A 34, 11 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Photoproduction of π0 -pairs off protons and off neutrons,

    M. Dieterle et al. [A2 Collaboration], “Photoproduction of π0 -pairs off protons and off neutrons,” Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 142 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Study of the γp → π0π0p reac- tion with the Crystal Ball/TAPS at the Mainz,

    V. L. Kashevarov et al. [Crystal Ball at MAMI, TAPS, and A2 Collaborations], “Study of the γp → π0π0p reac- tion with the Crystal Ball/TAPS at the Mainz,” Phys. Rev. C 85, 064610 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Target and beam- target asymmetries for the γp → π0π0p reaction,

    S. Garni et al. [A2 Collaboration], “Target and beam- target asymmetries for the γp → π0π0p reaction,” [arXiv:2207.14079 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Helicity- dependent cross sections for the photoproduction of π0 pairs from nucleons,

    M. Dieterle et al. [A2 Collaboration], “Helicity- dependent cross sections for the photoproduction of π0 pairs from nucleons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 062001 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Double π0 pho- toproduction on the neutron at GRAAL,

    J. Ajaka et al. [GRAAL Collaboration], “Double π0 pho- toproduction on the neutron at GRAAL,” Phys. Lett. B 651, 108 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Double π0 photoproduction on the proton at GRAAL,

    Y. Assafiri et al. [GRAAL Collaboration], “Double π0 photoproduction on the proton at GRAAL,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 222001 (2003)

    2003

  38. [46]

    Photoproduction of ρ0 mesons and ∆-baryons in the reaction γp → pπ+π− at energies up to √s = 2.6 GeV,

    C. Wu et al. [SAPHIR Collaboration], “Photoproduction of ρ0 mesons and ∆-baryons in the reaction γp → pπ+π− at energies up to √s = 2.6 GeV,” Eur. Phys. J. A23, 317 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Differential cross section and photon-beam asymmetry for the γp → π−∆++(1232) reaction at forward π− angles for Eγ = 1.5–2.95 GeV,

    H. Kohri et al. [LEPS Collaboration], “Differential cross section and photon-beam asymmetry for the γp → π−∆++(1232) reaction at forward π− angles for Eγ = 1.5–2.95 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 202004 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    New results on the Roper resonance and the P11 partial wave,

    A. V. Sarantsev et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “New results on the Roper resonance and the P11 partial wave,” Phys. Lett. B 659, 94 (2008). 19

    2008

  41. [49]

    N ∗ and ∆ ∗ decays into N π0π0,

    U. Thoma et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “ N ∗ and ∆ ∗ decays into N π0π0,” Phys. Lett. B 659, 87 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Data on I s and I c in ⃗ γ→ pπ0π0 reveal cascade de- cays of N (1900) via N (1520)π,

    V. Sokhoyan et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “Data on I s and I c in ⃗ γ→ pπ0π0 reveal cascade de- cays of N (1900) via N (1520)π,” Phys. Lett. B 746, 127 (2015)

    1900

  43. [51]

    High-statistics study of the reaction γp → 2π0,

    V. Sokhoyan et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “High-statistics study of the reaction γp → 2π0,” Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 95 (2015) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 187 (2015)]

    2015

  44. [52]

    Polar- ization observables in double neutral pion photoproduc- tion,

    T. Seifen et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “Polar- ization observables in double neutral pion photoproduc- tion,” [arXiv:2207.01981 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Three- body nature of N ∗ and ∆ ∗ resonances from sequential decay chains,

    A. Thiel et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], “Three- body nature of N ∗ and ∆ ∗ resonances from sequential decay chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 091803 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Beam-helicity asymmetries in double-charged-pion photoproduction on the proton,

    S. Strauch et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “Beam-helicity asymmetries in double-charged-pion photoproduction on the proton,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 162003 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Photopro- duction of the ρ0 meson on the proton at large momen- tum transfer,

    M. Battaglieri et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “Photopro- duction of the ρ0 meson on the proton at large momen- tum transfer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 172002 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    Evidence for the N ′(1720)3/2+ nu- cleon resonance from combined studies of CLAS π+π−p photo- and electroproduction data,

    V. I. Mokeev et al., “Evidence for the N ′(1720)3/2+ nu- cleon resonance from combined studies of CLAS π+π−p photo- and electroproduction data,” Phys. Lett. B 805, 135457 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Photopro- duction of π+π− meson pairs on the proton,

    M. Battaglieri et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “Photopro- duction of π+π− meson pairs on the proton,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 072005 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Measurement of Spin-Density Matrix Elements in ∆(1232) ++ photopro- duction,

    F. Afzal et al. [GlueX Collaboration],“Measurement of Spin-Density Matrix Elements in ∆(1232) ++ photopro- duction,” [arXiv:2406.12829 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Measurement of spin-density matrix elements inρ(770) production with a linearly polarized photon beam at E γ=8.2–8.8 GeV,

    S. Adhikari et al. [GlueX Collaboration], “Measurement of spin-density matrix elements inρ(770) production with a linearly polarized photon beam at E γ=8.2–8.8 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 108, no.5, 055204 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    The bremsstrahlung tagged photon beam in Hall B at JLab,

    D. I. Sober et al. , “The bremsstrahlung tagged photon beam in Hall B at JLab,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 440, 263 (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS),

    B. A. Mecking et al. , “The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS),” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A503, 513 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Photon flux determination through sampling of “out-of-time

    J. Ball and E. Pasyuk, “Photon flux determination through sampling of “out-of-time” hits with the Hall B photon tagger,” CLAS-NOTE 2005-002 (2005), https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/Physics/Hall-B/ clas/viewFile.cfm/2005-002.pdf?documentId=24

    2005

  55. [63]

    Energy calibration of the JLab bremsstrahlung tagging system,

    S. Stepanyan et al. , “Energy calibration of the JLab bremsstrahlung tagging system,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 572, 654 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Liquid hydrogen density in the G1C CLAS cryotarget

    R. Bradford and R. A. Schumacher, “Liquid hydrogen density in the G1C CLAS cryotarget” CLAS-NOTE 2002-003 (2002), https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/ notes/clas_notes02/02-003.pdf

    2002

  57. [65]

    Measurement of the differential cross sec- tion and matrix elements along with a partial wave analy- sis for γp → pω using CLAS at Jefferson Lab

    M. Williams, “Measurement of the differential cross sec- tion and matrix elements along with a partial wave analy- sis for γp → pω using CLAS at Jefferson Lab”, Ph.D. the- sis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    A new highly segmented start counter for the CLAS detector,

    Y. G. Sharabian et al. , “A new highly segmented start counter for the CLAS detector,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 556, 246 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    The CLAS drift chamber sys- tem,

    M. D. Mestayer et al. , “The CLAS drift chamber sys- tem,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 449, 81 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    The CLAS forward electromagnetic calorimeter,

    M. Amarian et al. , “The CLAS forward electromagnetic calorimeter,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 460, 239 (2001)

    2001

  61. [69]

    The time-of-flight system for CLAS,

    E. S. Smith et al., “The time-of-flight system for CLAS,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 432, 265 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    CLAS GEANT Simulation,

    M. Holtrop, “CLAS GEANT Simulation,” http:// nuclear.unh.edu/~maurik/gsim_info.shtml

  63. [71]

    Cross Section of the reaction γp → pπ+π− from the G11A run period

    E. Golovatch, “Cross Section of the reaction γp → pπ+π− from the G11A run period”, CLAS analysis note (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    A Phenomenological description of π−∆++ photo- and electroproduction in nucleon reso- nance region,

    M. Ripani et al. , “A Phenomenological description of π−∆++ photo- and electroproduction in nucleon reso- nance region,” Nucl. Phys. A 672, 220 (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    Electroexcitation of nucleon reso- nances at Q2 = 0.65 (GeV/c)2 from a combined analysis of single- and double-pion electroproduction data,

    I.G. Aznauryan et al., “Electroexcitation of nucleon reso- nances at Q2 = 0.65 (GeV/c)2 from a combined analysis of single- and double-pion electroproduction data,” Phys. Rev. C 72, 045201 (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    Kinematic fitting with CLAS,

    M. Williams and C. A. Meyer, “Kinematic fitting with CLAS,” CLAS-NOTE 2003-017 (2003), https://www. jlab.org/Hall-B/notes/clas_notes03/03-017.pdf

    2003

  67. [75]

    Energy loss corrections for charged particles in CLAS

    E. Pasyuk, “Energy loss corrections for charged particles in CLAS”, CLAS-NOTE 2007-016 (2007), https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/Physics/Hall-B/ clas/viewFile.cfm/2007-016.pdf?documentId=423

    2007

  68. [76]

    Low-Energy πN Partial Wave Analysis,

    R. Koch and E. Pietarinen, “Low-Energy πN Partial Wave Analysis,” Nucl. Phys. A 336, 331-346 (1980)

    1980

  69. [77]

    Briscoe, M

    W. Briscoe, M. Doering, H. Haberzettl, I. Strakovsky, and R. Workman, INS DAC Services [SAID Pro- gram], https://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/analysis/pin_ analysis.html/

  70. [78]

    Experimental study of the P11(1440) and D13(1520) resonances from the CLAS data on ep → e′π+π−p′,

    V. I. Mokeev et al. [CLAS Collaboration], “Experimental study of the P11(1440) and D13(1520) resonances from the CLAS data on ep → e′π+π−p′,” Phys. Rev. C 86, 035203 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Model analysis of the ep → e′pπ+π− electroproduction reaction on the proton,

    V.I. Mokeev et al., “Model analysis of the ep → e′pπ+π− electroproduction reaction on the proton,” Phys. Rev. C 80, 045212 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Pion and kaon photoproduction at high-energies: Forward and intermediate angles,

    M. Guidal, J. M. Laget and M. Vanderhaeghen, “Pion and kaon photoproduction at high-energies: Forward and intermediate angles,” Nucl. Phys. A 627, 645 (1997)

    1997

  73. [81]

    In the Ross–Stodolsky model [82], the ρ0(770) mass distribution is multiplied by a factor (Mρ/Mππ )4

    of the Breit–Wigner amplitude with a Deck-type background [30]. In the Ross–Stodolsky model [82], the ρ0(770) mass distribution is multiplied by a factor (Mρ/Mππ )4. The two ∆(1232) isobars are described by Breit–Wigner functions, their interference by an addi- tional term. No...

    1900

  74. [82]

    A theorem on pho- tomeson production near threshold and the suppression of pairs in pseudoscalar meson theory,

    N. M. Kroll and M. A. Ruderman, “A theorem on pho- tomeson production near threshold and the suppression of pairs in pseudoscalar meson theory,” Phys. Rev. 93, 233 (1954)

    1954

  75. [83]

    On the apparent shift of the rho meson mass in photoproduction,

    P. S¨ oding, “On the apparent shift of the rho meson mass in photoproduction,” Phys. Lett. 19, 702 (1966)

    1966

  76. [84]

    Photon dissociation model for vector meson photoproduction,

    M. H. Ross and L. Stodolsky, “Photon dissociation model for vector meson photoproduction,” Phys. Rev. 149, 1172 (1966)

    1966

  77. [85]

    Elastic and proton dissociative ρ0 photoproduction at HERA,

    J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], “Elastic and proton dissociative ρ0 photoproduction at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C 2, 247 (1998)

    1998

  78. [86]

    Note on the definitions of branch- ing ratios of overlapping resonances,

    V. Burkert et al. , “Note on the definitions of branch- ing ratios of overlapping resonances,” Phys. Lett. B 844, 138070 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  80. [88]

    Multichannel parametrization of πN scattering amplitudes and extrac- tion of resonance parameters,

    M. Shrestha and D. M. Manley, “Multichannel parametrization of πN scattering amplitudes and extrac- tion of resonance parameters,” Phys. Rev. C 86, 055203 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Baryon resonance extraction from πN data using a unitary mul- tichannel model,

    T. P. Vrana, S. A. Dytman and T. S. H. Lee, “Baryon resonance extraction from πN data using a unitary mul- tichannel model,” Phys. Rept. 328, 181 (2000)

    2000

  82. [90]

    Updated determination of N ∗ resonance parameters using a unitary, multichan- nel formalism,

    B. C. Hunt and D. M. Manley, “Updated determination of N ∗ resonance parameters using a unitary, multichan- nel formalism,” Phys. Rev. C 99, 055205 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.